Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Political correctness in the garbage

sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 8:44:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This pretty much sums up what I have said for years and so has history.

http://www.mrctv.org...
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 10:29:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's pretty silly, seeing as Islam nowadays is a religion, not a government, and so her whole argument doesn't apply. We aren't at war with Islam, we're at war with Salafism, and one of the most potent weapons against the Salafists are the mainstream scholars who have been sidelined in the last few decades. Meanwhile, Salafi Islam has spread like wildfire into political vacuums in the wake of our wars in the Middle East. We should be using the schisms within Islam to put pressure on the extremists, not pushing Muslims into their arms by being indiscriminate in our denunciations. If we had been propping up traditionalist Islam in places like Egypt and Libya, then groups like the Muslim Brotherhood never would have been able to gain an foothold. Instead we went from supporting secular dictators, who dismantled traditional institutions, to supporting radical Salafi revolutionary forces, which is the complete opposite of good policy if you're looking for stability and amicability. A good example is Obama stupidly supporting the rebels in Syria who were on the cusp of being radicalized.

Basically, Islam's ability to self-police has been all but destroyed, and the only way to restore some semblance of sanity to the religion is to support traditional schools over Wahhabism. This also means inevitably undercutting the Saudis, whom we never should have supported in the first place. This woman is typically uninformed, and draws false analogies between Islam and a series of governments in order to draw applause from a similarly uninformed audience in the sort of dog and pony show that I've come to expect from the American media.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 12:49:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 8:44:29 PM, sadolite wrote:
This pretty much sums up what I have said for years and so has history.

http://www.mrctv.org...

I remember watching this a while back. That law student got wrecked.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 3:14:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 10:29:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It's pretty silly, seeing as Islam nowadays is a religion, not a government, and so her whole argument doesn't apply. We aren't at war with Islam, we're at war with Salafism, and one of the most potent weapons against the Salafists are the mainstream scholars who have been sidelined in the last few decades. Meanwhile, Salafi Islam has spread like wildfire into political vacuums in the wake of our wars in the Middle East. We should be using the schisms within Islam to put pressure on the extremists, not pushing Muslims into their arms by being indiscriminate in our denunciations. If we had been propping up traditionalist Islam in places like Egypt and Libya, then groups like the Muslim Brotherhood never would have been able to gain an foothold. Instead we went from supporting secular dictators, who dismantled traditional institutions, to supporting radical Salafi revolutionary forces, which is the complete opposite of good policy if you're looking for stability and amicability. A good example is Obama stupidly supporting the rebels in Syria who were on the cusp of being radicalized.

Basically, Islam's ability to self-police has been all but destroyed, and the only way to restore some semblance of sanity to the religion is to support traditional schools over Wahhabism. This also means inevitably undercutting the Saudis, whom we never should have supported in the first place. This woman is typically uninformed, and draws false analogies between Islam and a series of governments in order to draw applause from a similarly uninformed audience in the sort of dog and pony show that I've come to expect from the American media.

"Islam nowadays is a religion" islam is a theocracy or better yet an ideology. People of Islam donot want to coexist.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 5:40:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 3:14:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:29:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It's pretty silly, seeing as Islam nowadays is a religion, not a government, and so her whole argument doesn't apply. We aren't at war with Islam, we're at war with Salafism, and one of the most potent weapons against the Salafists are the mainstream scholars who have been sidelined in the last few decades. Meanwhile, Salafi Islam has spread like wildfire into political vacuums in the wake of our wars in the Middle East. We should be using the schisms within Islam to put pressure on the extremists, not pushing Muslims into their arms by being indiscriminate in our denunciations. If we had been propping up traditionalist Islam in places like Egypt and Libya, then groups like the Muslim Brotherhood never would have been able to gain an foothold. Instead we went from supporting secular dictators, who dismantled traditional institutions, to supporting radical Salafi revolutionary forces, which is the complete opposite of good policy if you're looking for stability and amicability. A good example is Obama stupidly supporting the rebels in Syria who were on the cusp of being radicalized.

Basically, Islam's ability to self-police has been all but destroyed, and the only way to restore some semblance of sanity to the religion is to support traditional schools over Wahhabism. This also means inevitably undercutting the Saudis, whom we never should have supported in the first place. This woman is typically uninformed, and draws false analogies between Islam and a series of governments in order to draw applause from a similarly uninformed audience in the sort of dog and pony show that I've come to expect from the American media.

"Islam nowadays is a religion" islam is a theocracy or better yet an ideology. People of Islam donot want to coexist.

A theocracy is a system of government. Saudi Arabia and Iran have strong theocratic elements. Calling them theocratic would be accurate. Calling Islam theocratic isn't, because it is a religion, and being theocratic is an attribute of governments, not religions. Does Islam have a political element? Yes. So do just about all religions, and they have put those political elements into theocratic practice to varying degrees throughout history. And of course it's an ideology, religion is a subclass of ideology. That's about as meaningful as declaring that a rectangle is a quadrilateral.

And your last statement is a sweeping generalization which is obviously absurd.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 7:12:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 5:40:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 3:14:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:29:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It's pretty silly, seeing as Islam nowadays is a religion, not a government, and so her whole argument doesn't apply. We aren't at war with Islam, we're at war with Salafism, and one of the most potent weapons against the Salafists are the mainstream scholars who have been sidelined in the last few decades. Meanwhile, Salafi Islam has spread like wildfire into political vacuums in the wake of our wars in the Middle East. We should be using the schisms within Islam to put pressure on the extremists, not pushing Muslims into their arms by being indiscriminate in our denunciations. If we had been propping up traditionalist Islam in places like Egypt and Libya, then groups like the Muslim Brotherhood never would have been able to gain an foothold. Instead we went from supporting secular dictators, who dismantled traditional institutions, to supporting radical Salafi revolutionary forces, which is the complete opposite of good policy if you're looking for stability and amicability. A good example is Obama stupidly supporting the rebels in Syria who were on the cusp of being radicalized.

Basically, Islam's ability to self-police has been all but destroyed, and the only way to restore some semblance of sanity to the religion is to support traditional schools over Wahhabism. This also means inevitably undercutting the Saudis, whom we never should have supported in the first place. This woman is typically uninformed, and draws false analogies between Islam and a series of governments in order to draw applause from a similarly uninformed audience in the sort of dog and pony show that I've come to expect from the American media.

"Islam nowadays is a religion" islam is a theocracy or better yet an ideology. People of Islam donot want to coexist.

A theocracy is a system of government. Saudi Arabia and Iran have strong theocratic elements. Calling them theocratic would be accurate. Calling Islam theocratic isn't, because it is a religion, and being theocratic is an attribute of governments, not religions. Does Islam have a political element? Yes. So do just about all religions, and they have put those political elements into theocratic practice to varying degrees throughout history. And of course it's an ideology, religion is a subclass of ideology. That's about as meaningful as declaring that a rectangle is a quadrilateral.

And your last statement is a sweeping generalization which is obviously absurd.

My last statement is based on personal experience.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 7:21:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 7:12:09 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 5:40:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 3:14:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:29:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It's pretty silly, seeing as Islam nowadays is a religion, not a government, and so her whole argument doesn't apply. We aren't at war with Islam, we're at war with Salafism, and one of the most potent weapons against the Salafists are the mainstream scholars who have been sidelined in the last few decades. Meanwhile, Salafi Islam has spread like wildfire into political vacuums in the wake of our wars in the Middle East. We should be using the schisms within Islam to put pressure on the extremists, not pushing Muslims into their arms by being indiscriminate in our denunciations. If we had been propping up traditionalist Islam in places like Egypt and Libya, then groups like the Muslim Brotherhood never would have been able to gain an foothold. Instead we went from supporting secular dictators, who dismantled traditional institutions, to supporting radical Salafi revolutionary forces, which is the complete opposite of good policy if you're looking for stability and amicability. A good example is Obama stupidly supporting the rebels in Syria who were on the cusp of being radicalized.

Basically, Islam's ability to self-police has been all but destroyed, and the only way to restore some semblance of sanity to the religion is to support traditional schools over Wahhabism. This also means inevitably undercutting the Saudis, whom we never should have supported in the first place. This woman is typically uninformed, and draws false analogies between Islam and a series of governments in order to draw applause from a similarly uninformed audience in the sort of dog and pony show that I've come to expect from the American media.

"Islam nowadays is a religion" islam is a theocracy or better yet an ideology. People of Islam donot want to coexist.

A theocracy is a system of government. Saudi Arabia and Iran have strong theocratic elements. Calling them theocratic would be accurate. Calling Islam theocratic isn't, because it is a religion, and being theocratic is an attribute of governments, not religions. Does Islam have a political element? Yes. So do just about all religions, and they have put those political elements into theocratic practice to varying degrees throughout history. And of course it's an ideology, religion is a subclass of ideology. That's about as meaningful as declaring that a rectangle is a quadrilateral.

And your last statement is a sweeping generalization which is obviously absurd.

My last statement is based on personal experience.

Which is the worst possible basis for a generalization of that magnitude. This conversation is a study in secundum quid fallacies.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 7:23:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 7:21:07 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:12:09 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 5:40:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 3:14:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:29:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It's pretty silly, seeing as Islam nowadays is a religion, not a government, and so her whole argument doesn't apply. We aren't at war with Islam, we're at war with Salafism, and one of the most potent weapons against the Salafists are the mainstream scholars who have been sidelined in the last few decades. Meanwhile, Salafi Islam has spread like wildfire into political vacuums in the wake of our wars in the Middle East. We should be using the schisms within Islam to put pressure on the extremists, not pushing Muslims into their arms by being indiscriminate in our denunciations. If we had been propping up traditionalist Islam in places like Egypt and Libya, then groups like the Muslim Brotherhood never would have been able to gain an foothold. Instead we went from supporting secular dictators, who dismantled traditional institutions, to supporting radical Salafi revolutionary forces, which is the complete opposite of good policy if you're looking for stability and amicability. A good example is Obama stupidly supporting the rebels in Syria who were on the cusp of being radicalized.

Basically, Islam's ability to self-police has been all but destroyed, and the only way to restore some semblance of sanity to the religion is to support traditional schools over Wahhabism. This also means inevitably undercutting the Saudis, whom we never should have supported in the first place. This woman is typically uninformed, and draws false analogies between Islam and a series of governments in order to draw applause from a similarly uninformed audience in the sort of dog and pony show that I've come to expect from the American media.

"Islam nowadays is a religion" islam is a theocracy or better yet an ideology. People of Islam donot want to coexist.

A theocracy is a system of government. Saudi Arabia and Iran have strong theocratic elements. Calling them theocratic would be accurate. Calling Islam theocratic isn't, because it is a religion, and being theocratic is an attribute of governments, not religions. Does Islam have a political element? Yes. So do just about all religions, and they have put those political elements into theocratic practice to varying degrees throughout history. And of course it's an ideology, religion is a subclass of ideology. That's about as meaningful as declaring that a rectangle is a quadrilateral.

And your last statement is a sweeping generalization which is obviously absurd.

My last statement is based on personal experience.

Which is the worst possible basis for a generalization of that magnitude. This conversation is a study in secundum quid fallacies.

You can't beat personal experience. Until I see otherwise that's the way I see it. Your words mean nothing. My personal experiences contradict your words. Words are words. Personal experiences are undeniable.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 7:32:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 7:23:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:21:07 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:12:09 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 5:40:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 3:14:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:29:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It's pretty silly, seeing as Islam nowadays is a religion, not a government, and so her whole argument doesn't apply. We aren't at war with Islam, we're at war with Salafism, and one of the most potent weapons against the Salafists are the mainstream scholars who have been sidelined in the last few decades. Meanwhile, Salafi Islam has spread like wildfire into political vacuums in the wake of our wars in the Middle East. We should be using the schisms within Islam to put pressure on the extremists, not pushing Muslims into their arms by being indiscriminate in our denunciations. If we had been propping up traditionalist Islam in places like Egypt and Libya, then groups like the Muslim Brotherhood never would have been able to gain an foothold. Instead we went from supporting secular dictators, who dismantled traditional institutions, to supporting radical Salafi revolutionary forces, which is the complete opposite of good policy if you're looking for stability and amicability. A good example is Obama stupidly supporting the rebels in Syria who were on the cusp of being radicalized.

Basically, Islam's ability to self-police has been all but destroyed, and the only way to restore some semblance of sanity to the religion is to support traditional schools over Wahhabism. This also means inevitably undercutting the Saudis, whom we never should have supported in the first place. This woman is typically uninformed, and draws false analogies between Islam and a series of governments in order to draw applause from a similarly uninformed audience in the sort of dog and pony show that I've come to expect from the American media.

"Islam nowadays is a religion" islam is a theocracy or better yet an ideology. People of Islam donot want to coexist.

A theocracy is a system of government. Saudi Arabia and Iran have strong theocratic elements. Calling them theocratic would be accurate. Calling Islam theocratic isn't, because it is a religion, and being theocratic is an attribute of governments, not religions. Does Islam have a political element? Yes. So do just about all religions, and they have put those political elements into theocratic practice to varying degrees throughout history. And of course it's an ideology, religion is a subclass of ideology. That's about as meaningful as declaring that a rectangle is a quadrilateral.

And your last statement is a sweeping generalization which is obviously absurd.

My last statement is based on personal experience.

Which is the worst possible basis for a generalization of that magnitude. This conversation is a study in secundum quid fallacies.

You can't beat personal experience. Until I see otherwise that's the way I see it. Your words mean nothing. My personal experiences contradict your words. Words are words. Personal experiences are undeniable.

My personal experience is that people with the username sadolite are buffoons. Just saying.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 7:36:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 7:23:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:21:07 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:12:09 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 5:40:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 3:14:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:29:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It's pretty silly, seeing as Islam nowadays is a religion, not a government, and so her whole argument doesn't apply. We aren't at war with Islam, we're at war with Salafism, and one of the most potent weapons against the Salafists are the mainstream scholars who have been sidelined in the last few decades. Meanwhile, Salafi Islam has spread like wildfire into political vacuums in the wake of our wars in the Middle East. We should be using the schisms within Islam to put pressure on the extremists, not pushing Muslims into their arms by being indiscriminate in our denunciations. If we had been propping up traditionalist Islam in places like Egypt and Libya, then groups like the Muslim Brotherhood never would have been able to gain an foothold. Instead we went from supporting secular dictators, who dismantled traditional institutions, to supporting radical Salafi revolutionary forces, which is the complete opposite of good policy if you're looking for stability and amicability. A good example is Obama stupidly supporting the rebels in Syria who were on the cusp of being radicalized.

Basically, Islam's ability to self-police has been all but destroyed, and the only way to restore some semblance of sanity to the religion is to support traditional schools over Wahhabism. This also means inevitably undercutting the Saudis, whom we never should have supported in the first place. This woman is typically uninformed, and draws false analogies between Islam and a series of governments in order to draw applause from a similarly uninformed audience in the sort of dog and pony show that I've come to expect from the American media.

"Islam nowadays is a religion" islam is a theocracy or better yet an ideology. People of Islam donot want to coexist.

A theocracy is a system of government. Saudi Arabia and Iran have strong theocratic elements. Calling them theocratic would be accurate. Calling Islam theocratic isn't, because it is a religion, and being theocratic is an attribute of governments, not religions. Does Islam have a political element? Yes. So do just about all religions, and they have put those political elements into theocratic practice to varying degrees throughout history. And of course it's an ideology, religion is a subclass of ideology. That's about as meaningful as declaring that a rectangle is a quadrilateral.

And your last statement is a sweeping generalization which is obviously absurd.

My last statement is based on personal experience.

Which is the worst possible basis for a generalization of that magnitude. This conversation is a study in secundum quid fallacies.

You can't beat personal experience. Until I see otherwise that's the way I see it. Your words mean nothing. My personal experiences contradict your words. Words are words. Personal experiences are undeniable.

Your personal experiences apply only to what you experience. You know that person X who is A is also B. That person Y who is A is also B. That person Z who is A is also B. If there are only three people who are A, you would be qualified as saying that all A are B. If there are 5, you would be qualified in saying that most A are B, or that as a general rule A are more likely to be B. You could make a generalization, but not apply it universally. If there are 100 people who are A, you would not be qualified to even make the generalization in the first place. If there are over one billion people who are A, making the general rule based on your personal experience with at the very most less than 1% of people who are A and then universally applying it to ALL people who are A is prima facie absurd.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 8:20:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 7:36:31 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:23:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:21:07 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:12:09 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 5:40:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 3:14:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:29:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It's pretty silly, seeing as Islam nowadays is a religion, not a government, and so her whole argument doesn't apply. We aren't at war with Islam, we're at war with Salafism, and one of the most potent weapons against the Salafists are the mainstream scholars who have been sidelined in the last few decades. Meanwhile, Salafi Islam has spread like wildfire into political vacuums in the wake of our wars in the Middle East. We should be using the schisms within Islam to put pressure on the extremists, not pushing Muslims into their arms by being indiscriminate in our denunciations. If we had been propping up traditionalist Islam in places like Egypt and Libya, then groups like the Muslim Brotherhood never would have been able to gain an foothold. Instead we went from supporting secular dictators, who dismantled traditional institutions, to supporting radical Salafi revolutionary forces, which is the complete opposite of good policy if you're looking for stability and amicability. A good example is Obama stupidly supporting the rebels in Syria who were on the cusp of being radicalized.

Basically, Islam's ability to self-police has been all but destroyed, and the only way to restore some semblance of sanity to the religion is to support traditional schools over Wahhabism. This also means inevitably undercutting the Saudis, whom we never should have supported in the first place. This woman is typically uninformed, and draws false analogies between Islam and a series of governments in order to draw applause from a similarly uninformed audience in the sort of dog and pony show that I've come to expect from the American media.

"Islam nowadays is a religion" islam is a theocracy or better yet an ideology. People of Islam donot want to coexist.

A theocracy is a system of government. Saudi Arabia and Iran have strong theocratic elements. Calling them theocratic would be accurate. Calling Islam theocratic isn't, because it is a religion, and being theocratic is an attribute of governments, not religions. Does Islam have a political element? Yes. So do just about all religions, and they have put those political elements into theocratic practice to varying degrees throughout history. And of course it's an ideology, religion is a subclass of ideology. That's about as meaningful as declaring that a rectangle is a quadrilateral.

And your last statement is a sweeping generalization which is obviously absurd.

My last statement is based on personal experience.

Which is the worst possible basis for a generalization of that magnitude. This conversation is a study in secundum quid fallacies.

You can't beat personal experience. Until I see otherwise that's the way I see it. Your words mean nothing. My personal experiences contradict your words. Words are words. Personal experiences are undeniable.

Your personal experiences apply only to what you experience. You know that person X who is A is also B. That person Y who is A is also B. That person Z who is A is also B. If there are only three people who are A, you would be qualified as saying that all A are B. If there are 5, you would be qualified in saying that most A are B, or that as a general rule A are more likely to be B. You could make a generalization, but not apply it universally. If there are 100 people who are A, you would not be qualified to even make the generalization in the first place. If there are over one billion people who are A, making the general rule based on your personal experience with at the very most less than 1% of people who are A and then universally applying it to ALL people who are A is prima facie absurd.

What ever I see what I see
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 8:21:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 7:32:00 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:23:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:21:07 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:12:09 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 5:40:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 3:14:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:29:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It's pretty silly, seeing as Islam nowadays is a religion, not a government, and so her whole argument doesn't apply. We aren't at war with Islam, we're at war with Salafism, and one of the most potent weapons against the Salafists are the mainstream scholars who have been sidelined in the last few decades. Meanwhile, Salafi Islam has spread like wildfire into political vacuums in the wake of our wars in the Middle East. We should be using the schisms within Islam to put pressure on the extremists, not pushing Muslims into their arms by being indiscriminate in our denunciations. If we had been propping up traditionalist Islam in places like Egypt and Libya, then groups like the Muslim Brotherhood never would have been able to gain an foothold. Instead we went from supporting secular dictators, who dismantled traditional institutions, to supporting radical Salafi revolutionary forces, which is the complete opposite of good policy if you're looking for stability and amicability. A good example is Obama stupidly supporting the rebels in Syria who were on the cusp of being radicalized.

Basically, Islam's ability to self-police has been all but destroyed, and the only way to restore some semblance of sanity to the religion is to support traditional schools over Wahhabism. This also means inevitably undercutting the Saudis, whom we never should have supported in the first place. This woman is typically uninformed, and draws false analogies between Islam and a series of governments in order to draw applause from a similarly uninformed audience in the sort of dog and pony show that I've come to expect from the American media.

"Islam nowadays is a religion" islam is a theocracy or better yet an ideology. People of Islam donot want to coexist.

A theocracy is a system of government. Saudi Arabia and Iran have strong theocratic elements. Calling them theocratic would be accurate. Calling Islam theocratic isn't, because it is a religion, and being theocratic is an attribute of governments, not religions. Does Islam have a political element? Yes. So do just about all religions, and they have put those political elements into theocratic practice to varying degrees throughout history. And of course it's an ideology, religion is a subclass of ideology. That's about as meaningful as declaring that a rectangle is a quadrilateral.

And your last statement is a sweeping generalization which is obviously absurd.

My last statement is based on personal experience.

Which is the worst possible basis for a generalization of that magnitude. This conversation is a study in secundum quid fallacies.

You can't beat personal experience. Until I see otherwise that's the way I see it. Your words mean nothing. My personal experiences contradict your words. Words are words. Personal experiences are undeniable.

My personal experience is that people with the username sadolite are buffoons. Just saying.

Your personal attack on me is a reflection on you not me
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 8:57:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 8:21:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:32:00 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:23:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:21:07 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:12:09 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 5:40:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 3:14:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:29:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It's pretty silly, seeing as Islam nowadays is a religion, not a government, and so her whole argument doesn't apply. We aren't at war with Islam, we're at war with Salafism, and one of the most potent weapons against the Salafists are the mainstream scholars who have been sidelined in the last few decades. Meanwhile, Salafi Islam has spread like wildfire into political vacuums in the wake of our wars in the Middle East. We should be using the schisms within Islam to put pressure on the extremists, not pushing Muslims into their arms by being indiscriminate in our denunciations. If we had been propping up traditionalist Islam in places like Egypt and Libya, then groups like the Muslim Brotherhood never would have been able to gain an foothold. Instead we went from supporting secular dictators, who dismantled traditional institutions, to supporting radical Salafi revolutionary forces, which is the complete opposite of good policy if you're looking for stability and amicability. A good example is Obama stupidly supporting the rebels in Syria who were on the cusp of being radicalized.

Basically, Islam's ability to self-police has been all but destroyed, and the only way to restore some semblance of sanity to the religion is to support traditional schools over Wahhabism. This also means inevitably undercutting the Saudis, whom we never should have supported in the first place. This woman is typically uninformed, and draws false analogies between Islam and a series of governments in order to draw applause from a similarly uninformed audience in the sort of dog and pony show that I've come to expect from the American media.

"Islam nowadays is a religion" islam is a theocracy or better yet an ideology. People of Islam donot want to coexist.

A theocracy is a system of government. Saudi Arabia and Iran have strong theocratic elements. Calling them theocratic would be accurate. Calling Islam theocratic isn't, because it is a religion, and being theocratic is an attribute of governments, not religions. Does Islam have a political element? Yes. So do just about all religions, and they have put those political elements into theocratic practice to varying degrees throughout history. And of course it's an ideology, religion is a subclass of ideology. That's about as meaningful as declaring that a rectangle is a quadrilateral.

And your last statement is a sweeping generalization which is obviously absurd.

My last statement is based on personal experience.

Which is the worst possible basis for a generalization of that magnitude. This conversation is a study in secundum quid fallacies.

You can't beat personal experience. Until I see otherwise that's the way I see it. Your words mean nothing. My personal experiences contradict your words. Words are words. Personal experiences are undeniable.

My personal experience is that people with the username sadolite are buffoons. Just saying.

Your personal attack on me is a reflection on you not me

Your personal attack on Muslims is a reflection of you, not them.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 9:09:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 8:57:17 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/1/2015 8:21:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:32:00 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:23:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:21:07 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:12:09 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 5:40:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 3:14:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:29:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It's pretty silly, seeing as Islam nowadays is a religion, not a government, and so her whole argument doesn't apply. We aren't at war with Islam, we're at war with Salafism, and one of the most potent weapons against the Salafists are the mainstream scholars who have been sidelined in the last few decades. Meanwhile, Salafi Islam has spread like wildfire into political vacuums in the wake of our wars in the Middle East. We should be using the schisms within Islam to put pressure on the extremists, not pushing Muslims into their arms by being indiscriminate in our denunciations. If we had been propping up traditionalist Islam in places like Egypt and Libya, then groups like the Muslim Brotherhood never would have been able to gain an foothold. Instead we went from supporting secular dictators, who dismantled traditional institutions, to supporting radical Salafi revolutionary forces, which is the complete opposite of good policy if you're looking for stability and amicability. A good example is Obama stupidly supporting the rebels in Syria who were on the cusp of being radicalized.

Basically, Islam's ability to self-police has been all but destroyed, and the only way to restore some semblance of sanity to the religion is to support traditional schools over Wahhabism. This also means inevitably undercutting the Saudis, whom we never should have supported in the first place. This woman is typically uninformed, and draws false analogies between Islam and a series of governments in order to draw applause from a similarly uninformed audience in the sort of dog and pony show that I've come to expect from the American media.

"Islam nowadays is a religion" islam is a theocracy or better yet an ideology. People of Islam donot want to coexist.

A theocracy is a system of government. Saudi Arabia and Iran have strong theocratic elements. Calling them theocratic would be accurate. Calling Islam theocratic isn't, because it is a religion, and being theocratic is an attribute of governments, not religions. Does Islam have a political element? Yes. So do just about all religions, and they have put those political elements into theocratic practice to varying degrees throughout history. And of course it's an ideology, religion is a subclass of ideology. That's about as meaningful as declaring that a rectangle is a quadrilateral.

And your last statement is a sweeping generalization which is obviously absurd.

My last statement is based on personal experience.

Which is the worst possible basis for a generalization of that magnitude. This conversation is a study in secundum quid fallacies.

You can't beat personal experience. Until I see otherwise that's the way I see it. Your words mean nothing. My personal experiences contradict your words. Words are words. Personal experiences are undeniable.

My personal experience is that people with the username sadolite are buffoons. Just saying.

Your personal attack on me is a reflection on you not me

Your personal attack on Muslims is a reflection of you, not them.

Your attack is based on ignorance my "observation" is based on personal first hand experience and history
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 9:14:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 9:09:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 8:57:17 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/1/2015 8:21:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:32:00 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:23:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:21:07 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:12:09 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 5:40:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 3:14:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:29:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It's pretty silly, seeing as Islam nowadays is a religion, not a government, and so her whole argument doesn't apply. We aren't at war with Islam, we're at war with Salafism, and one of the most potent weapons against the Salafists are the mainstream scholars who have been sidelined in the last few decades. Meanwhile, Salafi Islam has spread like wildfire into political vacuums in the wake of our wars in the Middle East. We should be using the schisms within Islam to put pressure on the extremists, not pushing Muslims into their arms by being indiscriminate in our denunciations. If we had been propping up traditionalist Islam in places like Egypt and Libya, then groups like the Muslim Brotherhood never would have been able to gain an foothold. Instead we went from supporting secular dictators, who dismantled traditional institutions, to supporting radical Salafi revolutionary forces, which is the complete opposite of good policy if you're looking for stability and amicability. A good example is Obama stupidly supporting the rebels in Syria who were on the cusp of being radicalized.

Basically, Islam's ability to self-police has been all but destroyed, and the only way to restore some semblance of sanity to the religion is to support traditional schools over Wahhabism. This also means inevitably undercutting the Saudis, whom we never should have supported in the first place. This woman is typically uninformed, and draws false analogies between Islam and a series of governments in order to draw applause from a similarly uninformed audience in the sort of dog and pony show that I've come to expect from the American media.

"Islam nowadays is a religion" islam is a theocracy or better yet an ideology. People of Islam donot want to coexist.

A theocracy is a system of government. Saudi Arabia and Iran have strong theocratic elements. Calling them theocratic would be accurate. Calling Islam theocratic isn't, because it is a religion, and being theocratic is an attribute of governments, not religions. Does Islam have a political element? Yes. So do just about all religions, and they have put those political elements into theocratic practice to varying degrees throughout history. And of course it's an ideology, religion is a subclass of ideology. That's about as meaningful as declaring that a rectangle is a quadrilateral.

And your last statement is a sweeping generalization which is obviously absurd.

My last statement is based on personal experience.

Which is the worst possible basis for a generalization of that magnitude. This conversation is a study in secundum quid fallacies.

You can't beat personal experience. Until I see otherwise that's the way I see it. Your words mean nothing. My personal experiences contradict your words. Words are words. Personal experiences are undeniable.

My personal experience is that people with the username sadolite are buffoons. Just saying.

Your personal attack on me is a reflection on you not me

Your personal attack on Muslims is a reflection of you, not them.

Your attack is based on ignorance my "observation" is based on personal first hand experience and history

I would not step foot in any muslim country not even for a million dollars.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 9:19:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 9:14:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 9:09:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 8:57:17 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/1/2015 8:21:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:32:00 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:23:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:21:07 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:12:09 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 5:40:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 3:14:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:29:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It's pretty silly, seeing as Islam nowadays is a religion, not a government, and so her whole argument doesn't apply. We aren't at war with Islam, we're at war with Salafism, and one of the most potent weapons against the Salafists are the mainstream scholars who have been sidelined in the last few decades. Meanwhile, Salafi Islam has spread like wildfire into political vacuums in the wake of our wars in the Middle East. We should be using the schisms within Islam to put pressure on the extremists, not pushing Muslims into their arms by being indiscriminate in our denunciations. If we had been propping up traditionalist Islam in places like Egypt and Libya, then groups like the Muslim Brotherhood never would have been able to gain an foothold. Instead we went from supporting secular dictators, who dismantled traditional institutions, to supporting radical Salafi revolutionary forces, which is the complete opposite of good policy if you're looking for stability and amicability. A good example is Obama stupidly supporting the rebels in Syria who were on the cusp of being radicalized.

Basically, Islam's ability to self-police has been all but destroyed, and the only way to restore some semblance of sanity to the religion is to support traditional schools over Wahhabism. This also means inevitably undercutting the Saudis, whom we never should have supported in the first place. This woman is typically uninformed, and draws false analogies between Islam and a series of governments in order to draw applause from a similarly uninformed audience in the sort of dog and pony show that I've come to expect from the American media.

"Islam nowadays is a religion" islam is a theocracy or better yet an ideology. People of Islam donot want to coexist.

A theocracy is a system of government. Saudi Arabia and Iran have strong theocratic elements. Calling them theocratic would be accurate. Calling Islam theocratic isn't, because it is a religion, and being theocratic is an attribute of governments, not religions. Does Islam have a political element? Yes. So do just about all religions, and they have put those political elements into theocratic practice to varying degrees throughout history. And of course it's an ideology, religion is a subclass of ideology. That's about as meaningful as declaring that a rectangle is a quadrilateral.

And your last statement is a sweeping generalization which is obviously absurd.

My last statement is based on personal experience.

Which is the worst possible basis for a generalization of that magnitude. This conversation is a study in secundum quid fallacies.

You can't beat personal experience. Until I see otherwise that's the way I see it. Your words mean nothing. My personal experiences contradict your words. Words are words. Personal experiences are undeniable.

My personal experience is that people with the username sadolite are buffoons. Just saying.

Your personal attack on me is a reflection on you not me

Your personal attack on Muslims is a reflection of you, not them.

Your attack is based on ignorance my "observation" is based on personal first hand experience and history

I would not step foot in any muslim country not even for a million dollars.

Morocco aint so bad
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 9:22:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 9:09:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 8:57:17 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/1/2015 8:21:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:32:00 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:23:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:21:07 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:12:09 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 5:40:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 3:14:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:29:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It's pretty silly, seeing as Islam nowadays is a religion, not a government, and so her whole argument doesn't apply. We aren't at war with Islam, we're at war with Salafism, and one of the most potent weapons against the Salafists are the mainstream scholars who have been sidelined in the last few decades. Meanwhile, Salafi Islam has spread like wildfire into political vacuums in the wake of our wars in the Middle East. We should be using the schisms within Islam to put pressure on the extremists, not pushing Muslims into their arms by being indiscriminate in our denunciations. If we had been propping up traditionalist Islam in places like Egypt and Libya, then groups like the Muslim Brotherhood never would have been able to gain an foothold. Instead we went from supporting secular dictators, who dismantled traditional institutions, to supporting radical Salafi revolutionary forces, which is the complete opposite of good policy if you're looking for stability and amicability. A good example is Obama stupidly supporting the rebels in Syria who were on the cusp of being radicalized.

Basically, Islam's ability to self-police has been all but destroyed, and the only way to restore some semblance of sanity to the religion is to support traditional schools over Wahhabism. This also means inevitably undercutting the Saudis, whom we never should have supported in the first place. This woman is typically uninformed, and draws false analogies between Islam and a series of governments in order to draw applause from a similarly uninformed audience in the sort of dog and pony show that I've come to expect from the American media.

"Islam nowadays is a religion" islam is a theocracy or better yet an ideology. People of Islam donot want to coexist.

A theocracy is a system of government. Saudi Arabia and Iran have strong theocratic elements. Calling them theocratic would be accurate. Calling Islam theocratic isn't, because it is a religion, and being theocratic is an attribute of governments, not religions. Does Islam have a political element? Yes. So do just about all religions, and they have put those political elements into theocratic practice to varying degrees throughout history. And of course it's an ideology, religion is a subclass of ideology. That's about as meaningful as declaring that a rectangle is a quadrilateral.

And your last statement is a sweeping generalization which is obviously absurd.

My last statement is based on personal experience.

Which is the worst possible basis for a generalization of that magnitude. This conversation is a study in secundum quid fallacies.

You can't beat personal experience. Until I see otherwise that's the way I see it. Your words mean nothing. My personal experiences contradict your words. Words are words. Personal experiences are undeniable.

My personal experience is that people with the username sadolite are buffoons. Just saying.

Your personal attack on me is a reflection on you not me

Your personal attack on Muslims is a reflection of you, not them.

Your attack is based on ignorance my "observation" is based on personal first hand experience and history
No, you have that backwards.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 9:56:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 9:22:28 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/1/2015 9:09:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 8:57:17 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/1/2015 8:21:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:32:00 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:23:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:21:07 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 7:12:09 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/1/2015 5:40:44 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2015 3:14:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/28/2015 10:29:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
It's pretty silly, seeing as Islam nowadays is a religion, not a government, and so her whole argument doesn't apply. We aren't at war with Islam, we're at war with Salafism, and one of the most potent weapons against the Salafists are the mainstream scholars who have been sidelined in the last few decades. Meanwhile, Salafi Islam has spread like wildfire into political vacuums in the wake of our wars in the Middle East. We should be using the schisms within Islam to put pressure on the extremists, not pushing Muslims into their arms by being indiscriminate in our denunciations. If we had been propping up traditionalist Islam in places like Egypt and Libya, then groups like the Muslim Brotherhood never would have been able to gain an foothold. Instead we went from supporting secular dictators, who dismantled traditional institutions, to supporting radical Salafi revolutionary forces, which is the complete opposite of good policy if you're looking for stability and amicability. A good example is Obama stupidly supporting the rebels in Syria who were on the cusp of being radicalized.

Basically, Islam's ability to self-police has been all but destroyed, and the only way to restore some semblance of sanity to the religion is to support traditional schools over Wahhabism. This also means inevitably undercutting the Saudis, whom we never should have supported in the first place. This woman is typically uninformed, and draws false analogies between Islam and a series of governments in order to draw applause from a similarly uninformed audience in the sort of dog and pony show that I've come to expect from the American media.

"Islam nowadays is a religion" islam is a theocracy or better yet an ideology. People of Islam donot want to coexist.

A theocracy is a system of government. Saudi Arabia and Iran have strong theocratic elements. Calling them theocratic would be accurate. Calling Islam theocratic isn't, because it is a religion, and being theocratic is an attribute of governments, not religions. Does Islam have a political element? Yes. So do just about all religions, and they have put those political elements into theocratic practice to varying degrees throughout history. And of course it's an ideology, religion is a subclass of ideology. That's about as meaningful as declaring that a rectangle is a quadrilateral.

And your last statement is a sweeping generalization which is obviously absurd.

My last statement is based on personal experience.

Which is the worst possible basis for a generalization of that magnitude. This conversation is a study in secundum quid fallacies.

You can't beat personal experience. Until I see otherwise that's the way I see it. Your words mean nothing. My personal experiences contradict your words. Words are words. Personal experiences are undeniable.

My personal experience is that people with the username sadolite are buffoons. Just saying.

Your personal attack on me is a reflection on you not me

Your personal attack on Muslims is a reflection of you, not them.

Your attack is based on ignorance my "observation" is based on personal first hand experience and history
No, you have that backwards.

No I don't. Dialog ends
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%